Windows Server 2003 better than Linux ?? [LWN.net]

Windows Server 2003 better than Linux ??

Posted May 7, 2003 2:45 UTC (Wed) by neoprene (guest, #8520)
In reply to: Linux has arrived! by mark
Parent article: Windows Server 2003 better than Linux (Inquirer)

This report begs more questions than it answers. Synthetic benchmarks are usually flawed, I dont know about this one. Just the fact that MS paid for the test makes it suspicious. What other tests have they paid for and _not_ published?
Anyone buying an $80,000+ (yeah I checked) 32-bit 8-way DL760 server would likely not be fooled by this "study".
Likely he would likely look into a 64-bit proposition, including AMD Opteron (cluster?), Itanium2, POWER4+ ($91,00+) and even something Sunny and Utrasparky ($86,000 V880) and not even have to bother with MickeySoft.
It looks like Open Source is rattling the cage in Redmond.

(Log in to post comments)

Windows Server 2003 better than Linux ??

Posted May 7, 2003 4:59 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

I've seen press today that Merrill Lynch has downgraded their stock to
"neutral", precisely because of the danger to them from Linux (in the
person of IBM, mostly, but still)...

Our Plans For World Domination may be speeding up.

Merrill Lynch downgrades Microsoft

Posted May 10, 2003 16:03 UTC (Sat) by rwmj (guest, #5474) [Link]

More likely it's because Microsoft has been running an Enron-style accounting scam (legally, I hasten to add) for the last few years. They've actually been making loses & have a huge undisclosed liability.

See: http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html for the basics and and the updates section of the site for further news.

Rich.